rudeonline's theory is possible..

Since the mind and life institute is trying to explain more about science and spiritualism I would like to tell you my idea about consciousness. The thing is that men is looking in the wrong direction with A. Einsteins relativity theory. Not light itself is moving, we are moving true time and space with the speed of light. Light is only an energy leaving his source as a trail.

At the speed of light there is no time. So nothing can move.
From the point of view from a person each distance is a possibility into the future. While we travel true time we are able to see all options what the light is showing us.

To prove my idea I wrote the following text...

I can prove that the relativity theory of Einstein is wrong. The good point is that I can make this understandable for many people in a very simple way. The issue I try to prove with my idea is that our own consciousness is the absolute border of the universe. To prove this I have to prove that the speed of light is not 300.000km/sec but actually zero. I know that this sounds completely strange but read on and I will try to explain you in a short way how I think to prove this.

The first thing to know is that there is no time at light speed. How can something move if there is no time to move? Looking to the twin paradox a traveller true space leaves the earth and comes back and is only 1 second older. The person on Earth is than for example 2 years older.

If the traveler true space only became one second older, he never could make a longer trip than 300.000km. He had only 1sec to travel! The person on earth was traveling in the same "period" at least 30km/sec, because that is the speed of earth around the sun. Well, 2 years x 30km/sec is a lot more than 300.000km.

Off course I have to explain you a lot more than this, I just hope that I can open some eyes of the scientists working with this theory. If the theory is relative, you also should put it upside down. If light moves with 300.000km/sec one way, we are moving with the same speed the other way. Notice that we measure seconds, not the photon. You need time to move.

I would like to tell you a lot more about the way it is possible that we can "see" things if light is not moving, also this is not to difficult to understand. From the point of view from the individual all other positions are possibilities in the future. The person travels true time ( to tomorrow and so on..) while light leaves a trail into the past from the point of view where it comes from.

I hope that you understand my idea what I would like to show to the people. The idea of a multiversum is so a lot closer to mankind ( everyone is the middle of his own universe) ans consciousness is the border of the universe. We can chose our own future.

Tell me what you think of this idea..

Last edited by rudeonline on Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Your idea sounds nice, but has some fundamental flaws in it. First of all, speed IS relative, so you cannot say you're moving at 30 km/h. That would need a origin of the universe, a point we know to be at speed zero and which is therefore not affected by Relativity. However, Newton has discovered and then proved that such a point does not exist. If we define one arbitrarily, it would be like saying the Earth stands still and all the others move around it in curious trajectories. Physically it is correct, but this has some philosophical implications that are, in short, rejected by the scientific world through simple reasoning.

I haven't actually understood, from your post, why do you use the speed of light as THE fundamental speed. It is, in truth, a limit, but relativity reffers to every other speed... Maybe you can explain that in other words.

"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.

Show me Einstein's theory, show me that you understand it, and then show me the mistake. Then you'll have proved he was wrong.

At the speed of light there is no time.

That's if you assume Einstein's relativity, which you've just so cleverly disproven.

So nothing can move.

Nothing inside the light beam can move, from our point of view. If the light beam happens to be carrying a clock, we won't see it tick. This doesn't mean the light doesn't move with respect to us. The speed of light is measured by observers with clocks that do tick.

Show me Einstein's theory, show me that you understand it, and then show me the mistake. Then you'll have proved he was wrong.

If time slows down when you make some speed means that a second will last longer, like a beat in music witch slows down. If a clock does not move anymore at light speed there is no way how to measure movement. At light speed there is no time and space for movement at all.

That's if you assume Einstein's relativity, which you've just so cleverly disproven.

The speed of light could also be the stillness of light. We are moving with 300.000km/sec true time.

Nothing inside the light beam can move, from our point of view. If the light beam happens to be carrying a clock, we won't see it tick. This doesn't mean the light doesn't move with respect to us. The speed of light is measured by observers with clocks that do tick.

If it was possible to move with light speed you will leave and arrive on the same time. How would you like to make a movement?

The speed of light could also be the stillness of light. We are moving with 300.000km/sec true time.

With respect to what? From my point of view, I'm not moving at all, and I never have. When I walk somewhere, I just push the earth backwards.

If it was possible to move with light speed you will leave and arrive on the same time.

Picture this. I'm sitting still watching you go past at the speed of light. On my clock, you leave and arrive at different times, because you're not going at infinite speed, you're going at the speed of light. However, I can't see your clock ticking at all.

Now, you're sitting still in your light spaceship, watching the universe fly past you at the speed of light. Your destination is approaching you at the speed of light, so it takes some time (on your clock) to reach you. Because I'm moving so fast and you're sitting still, your clock is ticking, but mine isn't.

You don't leave and arrive at the same time in any reference frame, ever.

No it wouldn't. If you're travelling at the speed of light, then from your reference frame you're stationary, and your destination is approaching you at the speed of light. So you will arrive after a time t = d/c, where d is the distance to your destination, and c is the speed of light.

You won't notice your clock going slower, other people in a different frame of reference will. That's the whole point of special relativity. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "what does it mean?" I don't know what kind of meaning you want out of it.

rather than considering that light always travels 3*10^8 m/s faster than you consider that you always travel 3*10^8 m/s slower than light, that way light can always travel at the same speed but the speed at which you experience time becomes slower

how would one notice ones clock going slower, by comparing it to the speed of another clock, hmmmm, not easy to do when all clocks will appear the same to the high velocity traveller :p

You don't notice your own clock going slower, because it's not moving with respect to you. The stationary observer sees your clock going slower than his, you see his going slower. Not all clocks appear the same to you just because you're moving wrt to something. That would contradict the first postulate.

mghtymoop wrote:rather than considering that light always travels 3*10^8 m/s faster than you consider that you always travel 3*10^8 m/s slower than light, that way light can always travel at the same speed but the speed at which you experience time becomes slower

rudeonline wrote:When men and women create's a child, 2 moment's of "now" come together as a new "now".

thats a bit ubsurd. those lines of possibilities would have always existed... becuase really every particle in the universe has its own moments of "now". where those particles are positioned and other features of them are the possibilities. they do not come together and form new pools of possibilities. they simply assume new possibilities. you have to remember that everything is made up of these particles (building blocks of existance) and therefore cannot have a single "now"

mate, shake it off, it's ok, when a man and a woman meet two nows don't become one, trust me, with women their now becomes yesterday and yours becomes somewhere later in the week when ya can be bothered getting off the couch, but back to your theory of the child rubbish, when 23 pairs of chromosones randomly split apart and recombine with each other within the pair then split the pairs apart to form a gamete that meets a gamete from another member of the sexually reproducing species provided the gametes are compatible and no fatal mutations to the dna have occured the chromosones will now merge together again witht the other chromosones to complete a cell that will then possibly produce a child, there is no meldings of now into each other or any overlap of conciousness or anything else along those lines, a new coporeal form is created which if you want to interpret it spiritually is ready for inhabitation by an individual spirit who normally in our current societal climate will go out of it's way to resist any connection whatsoever with it's parents concept of now, especially when it concerns doing the dishes during the simpsons. if you want to talk about now consisder that in a 4d universe everything that has happened and everything that will happen and everything that is happening has all happened in the same instant so the concept of now is unneccesary, all you need is the concept of is

is is the oppsoite statement to the term "is not" shortened to isn't, it refers to a manifest existance, a reality of sorts after which there is no return, a choice made by physics that cannot be denied or reversed, is is absolute and factual without theoretical or idealogical significance

icon and house, im with pwong for the purposes of this discussion is should be taken to mean the plural of i. if not then the whole argument breaks down and becomes NONESENSE. and we wouldn't want that to happen